General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMcConnell, sounding rattled, says give the people a voice
Spinning like a top on the Senate floor right now. Says, "Give the people a voice." Well, here's what the people say, and that was before the President nominated the most qualified, least politically-charged candidate available:
Majority of Public Wants Senate to Act on Obamas Court Nominee
http://www.people-press.org/2016/02/22/majority-of-public-wants-senate-to-act-on-obamas-court-nominee/
And then there's a big spiel about the Biden Rule, which people will look at as so much Beltway speak.
This will be fun.
malaise
(269,219 posts)Get the popcorn
still_one
(92,454 posts)election.
ok. I am a little slow, but perhaps someone can explain to me how making the SC nomination part of the Presidential election is NOT political
hmmmmmmmmm
Wounded Bear
(58,743 posts)he already has.
still_one
(92,454 posts)edhopper
(33,639 posts)so we can't have a nomination on any even year.
Or it would be "politicized".
C_U_L8R
(45,025 posts)His argument is total BS. If he were honest, he'd admit his partisan motivations.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,737 posts)blm
(113,112 posts)If McConnell truly believes this is a case of principle, then he should write the legislation seeking a constitutional amendment that will do what he says must be done.
Presidents shall nominate Supreme Court justices ONLY in their first 3 years of office.
Come on, Mitch - if this is what you and the Senate are demanding then put it up for a vote.
liberal from boston
(856 posts)Mitch McConnell -- the people have already spoken --they have elected President Obama TWICE by overwhelming margins.
blue neen
(12,335 posts)He has been leading his party into terribly wrong decisions for quite some time now...and now they are starting to pay for it.
flygal
(3,231 posts)I know the answer - decades of hate radio convincing their people that anything against the Democrats is good.
Solly Mack
(90,792 posts)We've had the unexpected blessing of a title opening up. We've had the grandiose bellowings from supporters of the former title holder.
Now we have a new contender.
Well, it does sound like a boxing match, sorta.
I've been up all night, so I'm punch drunk.
See what I did there?
I slay me.
I'll shut up now.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)President Obama. I appreciate the way he can put the screws to republicans now and again. It is going to be fun to watch the republicans contorted positions on why they will not hold hearings for this SC nominee.
I have never even heard of this judge but apparently he is the least objectionable nominee the President could put forth. Which is going to leave republicans wrestling to find one adult reason or another for not holding a vote on him.
glinda
(14,807 posts)ffr
(22,674 posts)The senate is suppose to hold hearings to vet presidential nominations. And then, if they don't like the approved nominee, they can filibuster.
It doesn't say that the senate can refuse to hold hearings if...like for instance, the senate majority leader is a white racist bigot and doesn't like the president is half white.
Mitch McConnell, you are derelict in your duties. Do your job!
Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)"Nearly a quarter century ago, in June 1992, I gave a lengthy speech on the Senate floor about a hypothetical vacancy on the Supreme Court. Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year. This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject. Indeed, as I conclude in the same statement critics are pointing to today, urged the Senate and White House to work together to overcome partisan differences to ensure the Court functions as the Founding Fathers intended. That remains my position today."
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)We elected you to be our voice and to do your work.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,446 posts)that they wanted Barack Obama to fill SCOTUS vacancies for the next 4 years. Not for the next 1, 2, or 3 years but FOUR YEARS! Neither the Constitution nor any law enacted since limits a President's appointments only to non-election years. Also, just because Republicans like to sometimes throw it out there, the 2014 midterms did NOT alter/change anything about President Obama's judicial appointment powers either. Republicans are trying to invent limitations/precedents that simply DO NOT EXIST just to prevent Scalia's replacement on SCOTUS from being one they didn't get to choose (and may not even be able to choose for the next four years either)!
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Anything organic is excluded.
0rganism
(23,975 posts)go ahead Mitch, don't do your jobs, see how that plays. Garland's highly qualified, low-key and moderate, so opposing him on the merits will be extremely difficult, but go right ahead. if you're super-lucky and end up with a GOP majority in the senate and a GOP president next year, yeah you could get a conservative nominee. OTOH, if things play out as the odds suggest, expect to be running minority opposition to whomever the Democratic president thinks will be a liberal answer to Scalia.
spanone
(135,900 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Obama has backed these obstructionist assholes into an extremely uncomfortable corner.
BeyondGeography
(39,386 posts)spanone
(135,900 posts)AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)And it is his duty to nominate a scotus. It is YOUR duty to accept or REASONABLY reject a scouts nominee. I really hate the right.....
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Your creepy religious cultist lost, so just shut your damned turtle face and get to work.
Vinca
(50,318 posts)After thanking her (Ayotte) for blocking the nominee because he isn't liberal enough for me, I asked her where one might find the "Biden" rule in the Constitution and why this "Biden" rule takes precedence over the Constitution. If you are unlucky enough to have a GOP Senator, maybe you could email and ask why Joe Biden's 14 year old speech is more important than our Constitution.
UTUSN
(70,762 posts)By the bye, "low information voters" was originally coined (I think in 2004?) to describe the Faux Propaganda Network demographic, but LIMBOsevic has done his trademarked number of turning language 180, applying it to Libs.
yellowcanine
(35,702 posts)My guess is that even among Republicans there will be more support for holding hearings and even confirming Garland. I suspect Mitch and his No buddies are going to get an earful from the people back home in the coming weeks and months.
liberalfromaustin21
(61 posts)Hypocritical fascist.
Rex
(65,616 posts)He should go snort some more coke and get back with us.
Takket
(21,644 posts)Can the democrats just hold a hearing without the GOP? What's stopping them form just getting a conference room, setting up a table, inviting the media, and asking this guy some questions? Let America hear what this guy has to say. If they don't like him, let America demand a rejection vote. If they don't like him, let America demand an acceptance vote. Doesn't have to be all formal and on the record if not officially called by the chairman of the judiciary committee.
I know they control the Senate but I find it hard to believe no one can even talk to this nominee without the GOP saying its okay.